What can we do about the shootings?

[Lea101]

Are grenades allowed in the states then?
Just trying to understand here

 

[TK421]

@TK421 “There should be sweeping reforms in gun control that include the prohibition of handguns.”

Since that won’t be effective because only the good guy, law-abiders will obey, we’ll accomplish that how? With gestapo searching each house, including toilet tank, under appliances, above ceiling tiles & inside duct work? Seriously? Heil, Hitler!

Well, if the laws change and a person still owns guns that they aren’t suppose to have - and that they have no divine right to have - then by definition, they’re no longer a law-abiding citizen. So that’s easy.

As far as criminals still having guns: that’s also easy. Gun crime always decreases when it becomes impractical to have guns when committing crimes are more trouble than what it is worth. This is the trend in all other developed nations so it’s not as though it were unknown territory. An obscure minority of extremely disturbed and depraved individuals are indeed very difficult to control, but that isn’t where the immense majority of gun violence comes from anyway.

 

[Minks]

@Nicolaite Thank you for the vatican document reference! It was a l-o-n-g (Lol! aren’t they all?!), but interesting read.

 

[CRV]

Readers Sound Off. (New York Post) World News

Not sure where to put this. But she has a point to consider.

 

[LilyM]

_Ruby:

Yes, but Thorolfr’s original question was why there were so many mass shootings in the USA compared to other places.

Gang murders make up the vast majority of mass shooting incidents in the US. Is the problem in the inner city that Joe Smith owns a rifle and a pistol? Does Joe Smith need to be treated like a criminal and have his property confiscated because other people don’t know how to get along in a civilized manner?

The problem is that plemty of other countries with just as many gangs, not to mention as many other issues as the US, seem to get along in just as civilised a manner with a fraction of the gun ownership.

Question - is it really ‘civilised’ if the behaviour is mostly happening only because people are scared of getting shot otherwise? If it isn’t happening mainly for.that reason, why the constant claim that guns are needed for self-defense as if nothing else will work?

 

[ForeverLearn]

Humans have evolved a need to group together for survival and thus they also leave others out of their group. When people are left out of the group it can cause very negative emotions and hatred. It can cause depression and anxiety. When the level of exclusion is extreme, a person’s mental state can diminish to the point where the person essentially believes that nothing really matters.

Couple this with the state of divide within the country, which is only being enhanced by the current administration, you have a recipe for the climate we currently have.

Now add the fact that the means to kill multiple humans both quickly and easily (guns) is readily available and bingo, you have close to 200 mass shootings since the beginning of the year. And since its a copycat world, the number continues to rise, since it seems to be an “acceptable, in” thing to do.

The problem is multifaceted, so the solution must be as well. Gun restrictions can not be off the table. They are part of the solution, but there are many other parts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The “right” to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution. That was a pure invention of social engineering justices. Even Ginsberg acknowledges that, though she’s still pro-abortion. The second amendment IS in the constitution.

Nobody I know idolizes guns.

Their favorite red herrings are “It was because they were crazy” and “It was those violent video games.” Nonsense.

I don’t know about red herrings, but I do think those are mistaken ideas. Some of those people probably are insane, but most seem to simply be evil, sociopathic people who want the experience of ultimate domination plus fame. It’s a dark desire, but it’s not crazy.

 

[niceatheist]

Per capita the US still has the highest rates of gun death in the developed world.

 

[vz71]

LInks? Sure. The problem is that there are no national statistics, and (common sense!) it depends on how close the target is.

So on the one hand, you make the claim that police are incredibly bad shots.
And on the other hand you cannot support with the actual study.

You rightfully point out the reason these statements are suspect. So I am left wondering what exactly you were trying to say.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Per capita the US still has the highest rates of gun death in the developed world.

Murder is murder, though. The U.S. is a long way from the top murder rate, per capita. The existence of long guns does not add much to the rate, if any. The big murder numbers are by people using pistols, usually in crime-related events like drug distribution.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Depends on the skill of the marksman and the accuracy of the gun. Cops do get some target practice, but they often start it as adults. The best shots (in my experience anyway) are those who practiced from a very young age. Some cops are good shots, but a lot of them aren’t.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes!.. thank you for a dose of true reality! I agree!

 

[tafan2]

I looked at your source, I do not see your numbers. It looks like knife deaths are 1591 and rifle deaths are 403. But deaths from all guns are 10,982. Most of them are hand-guns. Which is not surprising, most handguns are designed to kill people, one would expect murderers to use the most useful tool.
Oh how gun ownership has changed in the last 30-40 years. It is really sad. There is nothing traditionally American about our current gun culture. It is a very new phenomena.

 

[godisgood77]

Oh there’s that “common sense” claim again. Who get’s to decide what is “common sense” legislation? I think we already have enough “common sense” gun laws on the books and there should be no further infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.

At what point will you folks say we have enough laws already on the books? We always hear that we need just “one more law” and that will do the trick, and when that new law fails to stop a shooting somewhere the refrain for another new law is quickly called for. Enough is enough and it is time the infringements come to an end.

Good grief… we are so far from each other on our views…

Gun ownership in the US is very, very, very easy… you make is sound like it takes an act of God to get a gun.

All I’m asking is:
(1) We enforce the rules on the books for dealer sales
(2) we implement those same rules for private sales
(3) we harmonize the state and federal background check databases
(4) all gun sales require a background check.

getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting drivers license.

 

[niceatheist]

Now I suspect you will throw in stats from the developing world and failed states. Let’s stick to developed countries.

 

[tafan2]

I manually added up the data for all 5 years available.

Ok, I am not too smart, I used the last column as the total. Sometimes I am an idiot.

And rifles are infinitely better at killing people than pistols. Velocity is key when it comes to soft tissue damage and there’s not a pistol out there that can achieve the same velocities as a rifle cartridge. Pistols are used because they tend to be cheaper and easier to conceal.

Cheaper, easier to conceal are the primary reasons why people are using them. Hence they are a better tool.

Again, if people want to curb gun violence, so called assault weapons are a non issue. Pistols are responsible for the over whelming majority of homicides committed with a firearm.

There is not doubt that in order to curb violence, handguns need to be very much more regulated. Having said that, can we admit that some forms of violence are much worse for our society than sheer numbers indicate. Mass shootings of the type we have seen fall into this category. It certainly seems to me that 10 gang related murders, as bad as they are, do not affect our society and culture as negatively as 10 people being killed in a nightclub as part of a mass-shooting. Another example is to look at the resources we have devoted to stop another 9/11 attach, yet overall homicides are much worse. We cannot be a slave to numbers.
Both handguns and assault weapons need to be addressed (hence the need for handgun regulations ), but these mass shootings are getting worse and worse and assault weapons are the primary instrument of destruction. Also, assault weapons are heavily used by organized crime (ie gangs).
Of course, we do not need to prohibit hunting rifles and shotguns that heavily. I grew up with guns being ubiquitous in our environment. We were literally around them all the time. And no one owned an assault gun of any time. Very, very few people I knew owned handguns. Indeed, I did not even shoot a handgun until I was in college. If one went to a shooting range in those days, one saw various deer rifles and target rifles. Now, going to the same shooting range and it is predominatly semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns. There is nothing traditionally American about our gun culture today. It has become warped to a horrible degree. And it leads to violence.

 

[tafan2]

I’ll also disagree on gun culture, I think it’s the same as it’s always been. I remember my grandfather having an M1 Garand, an M1 Carbine, various 1911s, etc.

Those were the only type of military style weapons that were socially acceptable where I grew up. And that was simply because a few men collected them. They were by no means seen often. And even more rarely used. Not at all the same as what people have and do today. Not even close.

As the the carbine being similar to the AR15, that is hardly true. Lots of variants of AR-15 exists, so I will just use the numbers of the M-16. The carbine has a muzzle velocity of around 2000 ft/second. A M-16 round has a muzzle velocity of around 3200 ft/second. A m1 carbine has an effective range of 200 meters, the M-16 has a effective range of 300 meters. Nevertheless, I will grant you the M-1 Carbine is an assault rifle, although a poorly designed on. It was intended as a replacement to a side arm for non-frontline personel. Soldiers liked it for its light weight, and ease of handling, not for its effectiveness in combat.

But again, this is beside the point. The older style military weapons you describe are primary used by collectors and enthuists. They have never been prominent in any way. One cannot point to one’s grandfather owning a couple as being evidence of the gun culture not changing. I have lived through this change. I find it disgusting. People today love guns because of their killing power. I grew up and people loved guns because of their usefulness for a particular purpose which almost always was limited to hunting and target shooting.

 

[Nikolaite]

As the the carbine being similar to the AR15, that is hardly true. Lots of variants of AR-15 exists, so I will just use the numbers of the M-16. The carbine has a muzzle velocity of around 2000 ft/second. A M-16 round has a muzzle velocity of around 3200 ft/second. A m1 carbine has an effective range of 200 meters, the M-16 has a effective range of 300 meters. Nevertheless, I will grant you the M-1 Carbine is an assault rifle, although a poorly designed on. It was intended as a replacement to a side arm for non-frontline personel. Soldiers liked it for its light weight, and ease of handling, not for its effectiveness in combat.

But again, this is beside the point. The older style military weapons you describe are primary used by collectors and enthuists. They have never been prominent in any way. One cannot point to one’s grandfather owning a couple as being evidence of the gun culture not changing. I have lived through this change. I find it disgusting. People today love guns because of their killing power. I grew up and people loved guns because of their usefulness for a particular purpose which almost always was limited to hunting and target shooting.

You’re wrong about rifles and velocity. Velocity is related back to the cartridge.

You’re also wrong about attributing hidden intention or motive to firearm owners.

I would point out that with credit being so easy now, and certain groups of people having a more readily disposable income, that is more likely a large part of the current reasoning behind acquiring more or varied firearms than anything else. There is absolutely NOTHING immoral about liking, enjoying and collecting firearms. Firearms are not intrinsically evil, they’re neutral tools.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now I suspect you will throw in stats from the developing world and failed states. Let’s stick to developed countries.

If you take out the gang-related killings, the U.S. murder rate is miniscule. These mass shooter killings are horrible, but they don’t compare to one month in gang-dominated areas of Chicago.

 

[tafan2]

You’re wrong about rifles and velocity. Velocity is related back to the cartridge.

I know this. I also am very familiar with the M1-Carbine. There are not cartridges readily available with as high of muzzle velocity as almost any cartridge that comes for any caliber AR-15.

You’re also wrong about attributing hidden intention or motive to firearm owners.

I am not calling them hidden intentions. I have friends who have lots of these assult guns and handguns. I have also discussed this topic on various internet forums, including this. As soon as they start talking about a particular gun, they start speaking about things such as muzzle velocity, “stopping power”, usefulness in a personal combat/defense situation. They don’t hide their intention as to why they like a particular gun at all.

I would point out that with credit being so easy now, and certain groups of people having a more readily disposable income, that is more likely a large part of the current reasoning behind acquiring more or varied firearms than anything else. There is absolutely NOTHING immoral about liking, enjoying and collecting firearms. Firearms are not intrinsically evil, they’re neutral tools.

I do not say that firearms are intrinsically evil. And I readily admit that as disposable income increases, enthusiasts buy more or varied firearms. But they are NOT neutral tools. These types of weapons are built for one thing: effective killing. Now, I know that the vast majority of folks owning them have no desire to ever use them for that. But there is something warped about it none the less. And now, you have a person, who grew up playing violent video games, was socially ostracized as a kid, throw in a little mental illness, and he turns 18 and buys a ar-1 and imagines himself as Rambo (this last statement is likely shared by many wholly sensible gun owners these days), and the combination is a disaster waiting to happen. Throw in the prevalence of handguns and assault weapons among the criminal class, and we know we have way too many of these guns around.

One only has to look at violent crime patterns. While these guns have become more and more prominent over the last 25-30 years, overall violent crime has trended downward. Yet mass shootings and gang killings have skyrocketed. It would seem there is a definite correlation between the types of crimes we are having problems with and the prevalence of these types of weapons.

Again, among the farmers and ranchers I grew up with, these style of weapons would have been looked upon with scorn.